Is burning organic matter really saving the planet?

Lars Schernikau: Energy Economist, Commodity Trader, Author (recent book “The Unpopular Truth… about Electricity and the Future of Energy”)

Details inc Blog at www.unpopular-truth.com

Is biomass really the climate hero it claims to be?
We’ve been told it is clean, renewable, and part of the solution. But dig a little deeper, and the picture gets a little murkier.

Governments are pouring subsidies into biomass projects, and energy companies are branding it as a climate win. But when you zoom out and look at the full lifecycle…from harvesting through transport to emissions, biomass starts to look a lot less like a solution, and much more like a loophole.

Could it be that, burning wood and waste for energy might be more about clever accounting than actual carbon cuts? Let´s find out…

A blast from the past

Before fossil fuels became the flavour of the month, we relied on firewood, crop waste, and other forms of biomass to power our lives. Now, with the push for cleaner energy sources, biomass is back on the menu and being marketed as a “green” alternative. But the return of this “ancient” solution raises a critical question: are we actually helping the environment, or just shifting the damage?

Figure 1: Estimates for global biomass energy and sectoral breakdown, Schernikau based on various sources available in the blog

The biomass boom

Today, biomass accounts for a significant slice of the renewable energy pie. Wood pellets shipped across oceans, food waste turned into fuel, and even whole forests chopped down in the name of sustainability. Among others, Finland and Sweden are leaning hard into biomass, showcasing it as a reliable and renewable source of electricity.

On the surface, it sounds like a great idea to use organic material we otherwise would have thrown away anyway, burn it for power, and call it a win for the climate. But like most things in energy policy, the reality is messier and much more complex.

Green on paper, dirty in practice?

Biomass gets a lot of mileage out of being labelled as “carbon neutral”. The idea that any CO₂ released when it’s burned is offset by the carbon the plants absorbed while growing sounds tidy, right?

Except… it’s not that simple.

Burning wood produces more CO₂ per unit of energy than coal. And those trees? They don’t grow back overnight. It can take decades, even centuries, for regrowth to rebalance the carbon books…if it ever does. Then throw in the emissions from harvesting, processing, and transporting the biomass across continents, and the green credentials start to look a little shaky.

Figure 1: Does replacing coal with wood lower CO₂ emissions? Source: IOP Science 

What’s the real cost?

Beyond the whole carbon math, biomass has other consequences. Forests cleared for fuel mean lost habitats and biodiversity… and air quality near biomass plants often takes a hit as well.

There’s also the policy angle…subsidies and carbon accounting tricks can make biomass look greener than it really is. Some critics argue that the incentivizing of practices that aren’t sustainable in the long run is taking place, just because they tick the right regulatory boxes.

This isn’t about dissing biomass

To be clear…the idea of turning waste into energy isn’t inherently bad. Done effectively, on a small scale, using truly renewable inputs, biomass can play a role in the clean energy mix. But like most things, scale matters. Context matters. And honesty matters.

Curious to know more?

I put together a quick breakdown of what’s really going on with biomass, and why it might not be as sustainable as it looks. If you’ve ever felt like some parts of the climate conversation just don’t add up, this one’s for you. The full blog post digs deeper into the numbers, the policy loopholes, and the real-world impact of the biomass obsession. If you’ve ever wondered how “green” green energy really is, this one’s worth the read.

-> How “Green” Does Biomass Make the World?